It’s often been said, during and in the aftermath of the Iraq War, that it was the single greatest foreign policy failure/fiasco in US history. Was it?
Of course, given the passions surrounding the event then spiraling out of control, many agreed with the assessment(especially given the incompetence of George W. Bush), but in retrospect, the Iraq War pales in comparison with, say, the Vietnam War and its impact on American society. It’s unlikely that future historians and social critics will obsess over Bush’s misadventure as people have done so about the role of the Vietnam War in American politics and culture. Indeed, prior to the raging controversy over the Iraq War, many had pointed to ‘Vietnam’ as the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.

But, even that assessment may have been overblown, partly because of the trauma of America’s first ‘defeat’. Arguably, the victories in previous wars obscured their longer-term dire effects. The US was on the winning side in World War I and World War II, but its key role in the defeat of Germany in the First World War led to disastrous results, paving the way for World War II.
To be sure, World War II, like any great historical event, wasn’t an inevitability, but the preconditions created by the peace forced on Germany by the US and its partners escalated tensions in Central Europe that made another war more likely. Such considerations have been obfuscated by the official narratives that conveniently placed all the blame on Hitler and Germany.
There’s also the view that Hitler was SO EVIL that it was indeed a moral imperative for the UK and US to have goaded him into war so as to bring down his villainy, i.e. even if Hitler was provoked, it was justified in order to bring him down by whatever means necessary.
There’s also the uniquely American view that the war was a welcome boost that finally ended the Great Depression. Besides, the Good Guys won the Good War against the Most Evil Regime in History. And the Americanists regarded the post-war order as one in which the freedom-loving US defended liberty and spread prosperity around the world, especially against the communist threat.

But, such a narrative is rather too convenient for Americans whose domain was untouched by direct conflict, notwithstanding the attack on Pearl Harbor. If American policies had made the war more likely, they were partly responsible for the tens of millions of deaths across Europe.
Also, had the war been avoided, most Eastern Europe nations would have allied with Germany against the Soviet Union, thereby limiting the extent of communist influence. The so-called Cold War could have been avoided with Germany and its partners as bulwark against communist Russia.

Also, had the war been avoided, there would have been no Holocaust, which means no paralyzing narrative to guilt-bait-and-burden the entire West as either genocidal mass killers, collaborators, or do-nothings in regard to the ‘greatest crime of all time’. Thus, abuses of Jewish Power could have been countered and checked more effectively, preventing the rise of the conditions that currently infest the West with the pathology of Jew Worship. What kind of civilized and sane order would hand the keys to the kingdom the likes of Victoria Nuland and her ilk?

Also, without the complete collapse of Europe as a viable power center, the tragic consequence of World War II, the second half of the 20th century would have been more balanced and multipolar in its power equation. The US and USSR as great powers would have had to contend with the great power(s) of Continental Europe and of course the British.
World War II effectively divided Europe into two camps, vassals of the US and the vassals of the USSR. Minus an autonomous Europe with the will and power to fend off both American and Russian hegemonism, world history turned into a cartoon of ‘democracy vs totalitarianism’, ‘imperialism vs revolution’, ‘free world vs tyranny’, ‘capitalism vs communism’, ‘individualism vs collectivism’, and etc. as if the ONLY historical/ideological choices were Americanism and Sovietism. There was, to be sure, the Non-Aligned Movement, but its anxious existence implied that the two towering giants were the US and USSR, with most the world compelled to be on the side of one or the other.

The American role in the creation of Israel should be recognized as another contender for the biggest foreign policy disaster. Given the lack of direct US military involvement, its dramatic success as nation-building(as Palestinians were quickly neutralized), and the Jewish grip on academia/media, it’s no surprise that few people dare to name the American role in Zionism as a foreign policy disaster, let alone the biggest ever.
Yet, so much of what has gone wrong in American foreign policy(and domestic affairs as well) could be traced to that event. Increasingly, the ‘Arabists’ were purged from the US government, leading to an imbalance in America’s formulation and application of policy throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Even though the US support for Zionism initially concerned only the lands of Palestine, as Jews grew in power and ambition it went from a national project to an imperial overreach, getting the US into one hell of a mess in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran. America’s increasingly one-sided support for Israel has embittered and inflamed much of the Arab/Muslim world. And now with the ‘Gaza Genocide’, America’s reputation around the world is in the toilet.
Furthermore, the tragicomic spectacle of all those brown-nosing white goy politicians and pundits shilling for Jewish Supremacism has done irreparable harm to the global perception of white folks. No longer seen as members of a proud, confident, and free race, they’re seen as servile, craven, and venal. White Republican idea of success is winning Jews over by indulging the Tribe’s absolute worst instincts. “If we support them in genocide, maybe just maybe they’ll kick us less and toss us more shekels.” How morally bankrupt is American Conservatism?

Now, it’s possible that white goyim would have turned into cuck-maggots of Jewish Power regardless of Israel’s existence. Even without the fruition of the Zionist project, Jews would likely have amassed great power and influence in the US with their talent, drive, cunning, and networking. One could argue that the Holocaust Narrative, more than Zionism, became the main albatross(or gooney bird) around the white goy’s neck.
To a degree, Zionism has tainted the Jews with accusations of ‘racism’, imperialism, colonization, supremacism, and ‘Nazi-like’ behavior, especially with Netanyahu’s Israel gone full armageddon on the ‘Amalek’. Even without Israel’s creation, one could argue that the Shoah Business alone would have been sufficient to morally check the white race into cuckdom.

There are two ways to promote or authorize prejudice, the negative and the positive. The negative way is brutally simple. Pick any group and tar them, defame them, or dehumanize them. It could be a racial group, ethnic entity, religious community, or ideological camp. For example, consider all those Hollywood movies where Arabs/Muslims were rarely little more than Jihadis or terrorists. Present them as a bunch of ‘ragheads’, barely human ‘muzzies’ to mow down when necessary, like in William Friedkin’s adaptation of Jim Webb’s RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. (Webb, who opposed George W. Bush’s Iraq War, should have known better than to produce such a pernicious work, especially because it feigns balance before finally concluding ALL Arabs to be a bunch of towel-head scum deserving to be mowed down from old man to young girl.)
Negative prejudice is, of course, common during war-time, even though current conventions decry overt caricaturing of the enemy, as happened in World War I and World War II: The evil ‘Huns’ depicted as rapacious gorillas or the vicious ‘Japs’ as rabid rodents. Granted, there’s still a lot of fulminating about barbaric Iranians and cruel Russians, but it’s hardly up to the levels of wars of yesteryear(except when depicting ‘white supremacists’).

However, there is another(and more insidious) way to normalize and enforce official prejudice: The excessive positive elevation of a certain group to the point of quasi-idolatry. Why would this be? A mindless promotion of A doesn’t necessarily demean B, C, or D. Just because A is made more popular or special doesn’t mean others are robbed of their basic dignity and rights of humanity.
But this is true only insofar as A has no hostile agendas against B, C, D, E, F, and/or etc. If indeed A does mean harm to, say, B and C, our obsessive devotion to A inevitably blinds us to the interests, rationales, and worthiness of B and C, because all we’d ever want to care about is A-ALL-THE-WAY.

That is why idolizing certain groups is dangerous, indeed far more than certain individuals. We know from celebrity culture that idolatry turns certain figures into ‘stars’, ‘heroes’, and ‘icons’. The fans, who could number in the millions or even hundreds of millions, are so taken with their idols that they often turn a blind eye to the dark side of their demigods or, worse, even justify it as ‘cool’ or ‘badass’.
The dark side of populism was admitted when Donald Trump said that his most devoted followers will vote for him even if he murdered someone in cold blood. So many movie stars, rockers, rappers, and athletes have gotten away with murder(figuratively speaking but literally in some cases) simply because of widespread adoration. Oftentimes, bad behavior, rotten values, and stupid attitudes were normalized simply because many people tend to imitate their ‘heroes’. The weaponization of Taylor Swift was on the assumption that the Swifties will do as their goddess-princess decrees.

Idolization goes way beyond favoring something. Rather, it favors something at the expense of others, even oneself. If Bob, Bill, Peter, Jim, and Nicolas each favor the self, that’d be the most natural thing. Each individual understandably prioritizes what is essential and necessary for himself. There is fairness and balance in each of the men favoring his own interest, of course within the rule of law and principles of fair play.
The problem of idolatry arises when one of the guys, say Jim, is accorded special status and fawned over by the others to the extent that his interests, feelings, and well-being take precedence even over the self among the others. So, Bob, Bill, Peter, and Nicolas will happily sacrifice their own self-interest in order to favor Jim. But it can even get worse if Jim harbors hostility toward, say, Nicolas. Suppose Jim wants Nicholas’ house and car. Bob, Bill, and Peter’s devotion to Jim would be such that they will berate Nicholas for protesting Jim’s hostile moves against him.
Idolizing Jim didn’t necessarily dehumanize the others, but if Jim were to turn hostile against anyone, idolatry translates into a bigotry toward the target of his ire on the logic that, Jim being so awesome, he must always be right, and whatever or whomever he hates must be in the wrong, therefore even worthy of destruction. Thus, idolatry could easily be the flipside of bigotry.

If we expand the example of individuals to ethnic and racial groups in the US, there’s nothing untoward about various groups favoring their own interests. It’s hardly surprising that the Armenian-American community would be more fixated on what goes on in Armenia and its diaspora. Same goes for Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Burmese-Americans, and etc. Each group favoring its own kind isn’t idolatry but merely natural self-interest. After all, if Irish-Americans don’t prioritize Irishness and their culture and people, who will?

There is a kind of equality and mutuality of respect when each group emphasizes what is most important to its people and culture. Your people respect the other people’s priorities, and vice versa. Your people don’t claim that their interests are first and foremost for the entire country and neither do the peoples of other ethnic groups. The varying interests may be unrelated — it’s doubtful if anything meaning to a Pakistani-American community has any bearing on the Cuban-American community and vice versa — , divergent, or in conflict, but even if tensions arise, there is no danger of idolatry if both contentious groups acknowledge that the entirety of the country doesn’t exist to prioritize one ethnic interests or agendas uber alles. For example, the Turkish-American community and the Greek-American community may not see eye-to-eye on the issue of Cyprus, but both are sensible enough to know that the US doesn’t exist to place Greek or Turkish gripes on the front burner. Thus, both groups lobby for their own ethnic or national interests, as do all the other groups.

Given ways things are going, Ireland is over, no less than Great Britain is. The demographic trends are dire, made all the worse by the Irish ruling elites, intellectual class, and the educated middle class lending their moral support to what is effectively White Nakba and using threats and coercion to discourage any authentic nationalist reawakening and resistance against the demise of the Irish as a people, culture, and territory.

For the longest time, Irish pride of identity derived in large part from the resistance to British Imperialism, but it was a narrative with caveats. Not only did the Irish adopt much of British culture, values, and attitudes but they were genetically indistinguishable from the Britons. In time, English became the language of the Irish, and furthermore, it’s hard to think of another people who were bigger beneficiaries of the empire, other than the British themselves of course.
Indeed, one could argue that the Irish came to greatness through the British Empire, directly and indirectly. Not only did countless Irish join in the imperialist ventures and gain political/economic advantages but they benefited immensely from the mass immigration to the United States that, despite its independence from the empire, was a British creation and, in time, the closest ally of the Anglo Empire. (Granted, one could argue that black Africans were even bigger beneficiaries of the empire because contact with the White Man transformed them from jungle primitives and savanna bunnies to citizens, and ultimately sacred cows, of the richest and most powerful country on Earth, the United States. Afro-Anglo interaction made the real difference as blacks in Latin America gained far less.)

�Ireland

The social contract has been broken by allowing people like this into our country.

To them, antagonising the native Irish is entertainment and they're hoping someone reacts so they can label them 'racist' and post it online. pic.twitter.com/IeLjLvcB8r

— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) September 17, 2024

So, even though official Irish historiography propped up the image of the plucky underdog Irish standing up to British tyranny, no less true was the fact of tremendous Irish gains under the empire(and its creations).
This has led to a certain schizophrenia in the political mindset of the Irish. Are they blood-brothers with the British who recruited the Irish(as their closest racial cousins) in the imperialist ventures or are they soul-brothers with all the peoples, especially nonwhites, who stood up to ‘racist’ British Imperialism and other forms of Western domination?

It was further complicated because the Irish, due to their lower status in the British hierarchy, were often assigned the dirtier work that led to resentments and prejudices(to both uppers and lowers). Indeed, the haughty British often admonished the Irish for being overly crude and bigoted towards the imperial subjects while they themselves affected magnanimous postures. The master hires the overseer to whip the slaves but then lectures the overseer not to be so brutal. It’s like Jews using white goy cucks to destroy Muslim countries and Arab lives but then pontificating about ‘Islamophobia’.
Often finding themselves closer to the imperial subjects in the British colonies, the Irish had fewer illusions about the ‘wogs’ and ‘niggers’. But in constantly being given the dirty work, they also grew to resent the British. (And during World War II, the anti-British feelings led to Irish neutrality, which could be spun today as “letting the Nazis kill all those poor innocent Jews.�)

The ethno-dynamic was somewhat similar in the US, despite its independence from the British Empire. The ruling class was mainly composed of Protestant Anglo-Americans while Irish Catholics were lower in class hierarchy. Thus, the Irish came in closer and more troubled contacts with other ethnic groups(such as Jews, Italians, and Polacks) and the blacks. Even though the Anglo-American elites established the socio-economic order, they often talked down to the Irish and other lower-class types as being bigoted in their inter-ethnic relations and racial attitudes. In the film RAGTIME(directed by Milos Forman based on the E.L. Doctorow novel), the tormentor of the fancy Negro looks like a typical drunken Irish-American.

Video Link

So, over time, the Irish were both more likely to growl about “those damn niggers� AND more likely to identify with groups perceived as exploited or tyrannized by the British or the Anglo-Americans.
Not surprisingly, the Irish who turned out to be least prejudicial were in Ireland itself, which was once virtually all Irish and white. If the Irish in the US and various parts of the British Empire at least had an eye-opening first-hand encounters with the ‘natives’ or nonwhites, the Irish in Ireland increasingly came to rely on the Jewish, Liberal, and/or Leftist-dominated media and academia for their worldview.

When Ireland had been fixated on the national obsession for independence and reunion with Northern Ireland, the larger world didn’t matter so much. Also, being one of the poorer nations in Europe with a healthy birth rate, the priority of the Irish was to improve their own lives, not to play the role of the saviors of the world. In this period, the politics of resistance was mostly nationalist, even though some Irish caught the revolutionary bug and conflated the Irish struggle with international movements against imperialism, even participating in rebellions or revolutions in other countries.

At some point, gradually and then suddenly, the mythos of Irish resistance took on a globalist color. It was less about the Irish resisting the empire to restore and secure Irish nationhood than about the Irish joining in(and even leading) the world community or movement against ‘racism’, ‘colonialism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘apartheid’, and so on. Thus, Ireland as a national entity in and of itself came to matter less as too tribal and petty. The elements of the national struggle were extracted and formulated into a global crusade. It encompassed the entire world, and the Irish were now part of this ‘universal’ movement, and so, it no longer mattered if Ireland was preserved as a nation or culture or land. All that mattered was that the Irish be on the side of the Global Good against the Global Bad. So, if masses of nonwhites arrived in Ireland and became the ‘New Irish’, what did it matter as long as it cemented Ireland’s position as a ‘progressive’ vanguard in the world?

There are way too many strange foreign men hanging around Ireland.

Fighting the British for 800 years just to give the country away to the 3rd world is the biggest L in Irish history. pic.twitter.com/bUdtI3iqqT

— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) September 17, 2024

Partly, this owed to the change in the political landscape following World War II, especially in the US, the dominant superpower to emerge(and relatively unscathed) from the ash heap of mid-century. Not only did the US media come to dominate the Free World but the US had a huge contingent of people of Irish stock, indeed even more than Ireland itself.
The predominant political narrative of post-war America comprised the Negro Problem, the Civil Rights Movement, the evils of ‘racism’, the commanding oratory of Negroes like MLK, and the magic of black popular music(even as a liberating agent for uptight whites with frozen souls).

One thing for sure, one needn’t be of the military to be militarist as, often is the case in the West, the civilian leadership(or puppetry of the oligarchy) tend to be more militarist, whereas a considerable number of military men often warn against excess adventurism. It goes against the grain of the popular narrative(via academia and mass media/entertainment) that the warmongers are embedded in the military. How often have we heard about the role of Japanese MILITARISM in the series of impossible wars that brought death and destruction upon mainland Asia and finally upon Japan itself?
The early Cold War Narrative often pits relative peace-seekers like John F. Kennedy against the War State, which some have suspected in the assassination of the former. Films like FAIL SAFE, DR. STRANGELOVE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY have military men plotting to bring about World War III in the name of defeating communism. And of course, the great bogeymen of World War I(or the Great War) have long been the German MILITARISTS.

But, some of the biggest warmongers have been in the civilian sectors of government, business(like William Randolph Hearst who beat the drums for what came to be the Spanish-American War), and the intellectual class(later to set up their various think-tanks). Most Jewish-Zionist Neocons, including women like Victoria Nuland the Cookie Monster of Maidan, never served a day in the military. (Tulsi Gabbard did and is less enthused for endless wars.) The near-epithet of ‘isolationism’ was cooked up by the intellectual class to shame and/or purge those calling against aggression or conflict via interfering in foreign affairs. Oftentimes, it was the civilian types blaming the military types for an unwillingness to engage the world in a warlike manner.

The Jewish, as well as the homo, angle is rather interesting in the phenomenon of civilian-militarism, or ‘civilitarism’. Many peoples/cultures throughout history have been depicted as warlike: Macedonians, Romans, Germanics, Mongols, the Turks, and etc. But not the Jews, renowned more for spiritual pursuits and aptitude for business. Of course, one could argue that the art of prophecy, of which Jews became masters, is a kind of spiritual declaration of war on the souls of humanity, its modern variant being the radical-secular ideology, such as Marxism that inevitably instigated wars and counter-wars.
In a sense, Jesus and Muhammad were the biggest warmongers of history even if by accident. So many wars in their name. And of course, one could argue that business, driven by ruthless competition, fuels aggression and expansion that could opt to resolve matters by war, or war as a continuation of business by other means.

At any rate, we’ve often been fed the impression that Jews, who tend to be cerebral, found themselves surrounded by warlike goyim. Even Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has been characterized as a man of peace at odds with the militarists who want to blow up the world.
To be sure, there’s been the figure of the Jewish radical or revolutionary, one committed to violent means, but the distinction(convincing or not) is nevertheless made in his favor as someone who uses violence as a means of idealism, whereas militarists supposedly love war for war’s sake(as in the case of PATTON the movie). Revolutionaries supposedly fight wars to save the world, whereas militarists fight wars to beat the world up.
In lobbing bombs, anarchists believed themselves to be working for justice/peace, i.e. the institutions are oppressive and tyrannical, and one must dismantle their structures to bring forth a world of everlasting peace and justice.

Of course, the revolutionary is the inheritor of the prophetic mindset, what E. Michael Jones calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Mindset’, and it has obscured the warlike nature of the Jewish Way. No matter how many bodies pile up, the Jewish narrative speaks of ‘tikkun olam’ or ‘healing the world’. Some trace the warmongering of the Neocons to their Trotskyite origins, and perhaps there is something to that, but given the near-universal support of the Wars for Zion among the entire spectrum of Jewish elites from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, the Trotskyite origins are probably more a footnote than the main thesis of the Jewish Worldview.

A key difference between the Jewish radicals/revolutionaries of old and the Jewish-Zionists Neocons/Neolibs of today is that a good many of the former were willing to join in the fight. They were true believers in the new prophecy(such as Marxism), for which they were willing to give their lives. It was a redeeming facet to their fanaticism, whereas the current hegemonists of World Jewry have no concept of the Good other than Jewish Supremacist Power, i.e. they are too good to expend their own precious lives.
As such, they prefer to expend any number of subhuman inferior goy lives to realize their own agendas. What do Zelensky of Ukraine and Netanyahu of civilian-led Israel have in common? Their reckless provocations seek to draw the US into a wider war. Make goyim fight goyim. Make Slav fight Slav, make Western Europeans fight Eastern Europeans, make American goyim fight Russian goyim. And Netanyahu’s wet dream is to make the US take on Iran and the rest loathed by Israel.

Even the sheen of Jewish warrior spirit and courage has gone from Zionism. One appeal of Zionism to the Jewish(and sympathetic goy) imagination was that, unlike the stereotypical Jew of yesteryear who cowered before their tormentors(and were herded into trains to the camps during World War II), the founders and defenders of Israel stood firm and fight like lions and hyenas, the mythos behind EXODUS the novel and movie. The Six Day War narrative had little Israel besieged by hostile Arabs preparing for The Holocaust the Next Chapter, but proud and heroic Israeli Davids, all on their own, smote the Arab Goliaths in a mere six days. Jews sure could take care of their own!

But with the grueling quagmire in Gaza and given that Israel’s neighbors aren’t quite the pushovers they used to be, Zionism is less about Jewish Spartanism that Smartanism, or how to cleverly manipulate the US to enter the war and fight Israel’s enemies so that precious Jewish lives don’t have to be sacrificed.
Amusingly enough, Jewish feelings about whites aren’t all that different from their feelings about the Palestinians — they are all inferior subhuman goyim — , but various goyim are under the delusion of being favored by the Jews, the rightful master race. It’s like a bunch of dogs believing that they will be spared and rewarded if they serve the Asian master who kills and eats dogs; it doesn’t occur to them that THEY may be the next in the pot. So, even though Jews did the Palestinian Nakba and are now pushing White Nakba, white shabbos goy dogs hope and pray that Jews will spare and reward them as the ‘good dogs’ if they bark and bite at the ‘bad dogs’. But even Palestinians like Rashida Tlaib could be so deluded. She denounces what the Jews are doing to her people but earlier played cheerleader to the Jewish War on Russia via Ukraine as proxy.

Note: Readers will have noticed my absence for about two months. This is owing to the development of a trigger finger, very painful for a month and limiting finger movement thereafter. The pain is gone, but the stiffness seems permanent(but manageable).
The following piece was begun in May, and events since may have made it less urgent. But as the Gaza Tragedy is far from over and the Democratic Party Convention is just around the corner, I believe it’s still relevant.

Video Link

What is the significance of the mass protests since Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Gaza following the Hamas strike on October 7, 2023? A truly unprecedented development, the answer is bound to be multifaceted. One is the blow to the idolatry of victimhood, a kind of eternalization of historical tragedy seeking to permanently seal a certain group’s identity with a particular event or prolonged(but far from unending and/or continuous) condition.
The mental habit may have origins with the Christians who made a grand fetishization of victimhood/suffering and permanently affixed their faith and community with the suffering of Jesus Christ and the Early Christians. In other words, because the Romans fed the Early Christians to the lions, Christians get to accrue forever interests on noble victimhood regardless of their aggressions, violence, and hypocrisies through the ages.
Over time, it became a kind of passive/aggressive strategy(not always conscious) in dealing with the outside world(and ‘heretical’ sects of Christians). It became a de facto ploy of European Imperialism whereby, oftentimes, the Christian missionaries were among the first ones to make contact with the Other, only to be misunderstood, persecuted, and even killed by the natives. Thus, the Christian West earned Sacred Victim points via the ‘passive’ sacrifices of the missionaries and cashed them in as moral justification to conquer and quell the infidels. “We tried to spread love and faith to your darkies, but you slayed our missionaries with vicious cruelty, thereby leaving us no choice but to set things right by the might of arms.” Send in the missionaries, create saint-martyrs, bleat sanctimoniously about their sacrifice, and then invoke God and Country to wreak vengeance and spread the ‘civilization’.

Still, one saving grace of Christianity, for all its hypocrisies, was the commitment, at least in theory and ideal, to be as hard on oneself and one’s own people(if not more so) as on the Other. After all, whereas the benighted heathens may not have known better in their spiritual darkness, the Christians who’ve accepted the blessings of Jesus the loving and compassionate God should have known better and expected more of themselves.
Then, it’s no wonder that, along with the violence and hypocrisy, there were genuine efforts in the Christian West toward social and political reforms based on Christian moral precepts.
Also, one useful quality about hypocrisy is it could be pointed to reveal the hypocrisy of those who preach one thing but practice something else. One might say a hypocritical Christian was less dangerous than a consistent Nazi ideologue, Roman soldier, or Mongol barbarian who honestly acknowledged he was invading to conquer, exterminate, and enslave, and that was that. You can’t fault them for hypocrisy as they practiced exactly what they preached.

Christians exploited past suffering to sanctify their present and future, but in their emphasis on victimization and suffering, they were confronted with their own transgressions or trespasses against others. Thus, being a Christian didn’t mean you only got to cry victim; it also meant you had to face up to your own potential for evil unto others.
Indeed, a Christian who wraps himself in the banner of Jesus, endlessly bleats ‘Christ Is King’, and acts as if he or his people have nothing to answer for is a pretty useless Christian. (Even more useless are American Christians who really worship the Mammon of power and wealth, which explains why they currently worship Jews above God and Jesus and cackle with hideous glee at the sight of Gazans being butchered by the almighty IDF. Such types have proven that faith in Christianity is no guarantee for moral rectitude. At the other end, you have those insufferable holier-than-thou types who relish wallowing in guilt as a kind of exhibitionism. “Just look at me kiss a Negro’s feet, boo hoo hoo.”)

If there has been a degree of self-reflection among Christians, such has been mostly absent among the three groups that have recently staked claims of permanent tragicism or eternal victimhood. They are Jews, blacks, and homos. It wasn’t always so, however.
Post-Holocaust Jews, while hardly critical of Jewish behavior, did believe that Jews, given their own history of suffering, should be more conscientious and compassionate about other groups who’ve experienced similar tragedies or face horrors of the now. It partly explains why many Jews took up the cause of Civil Rights for blacks, pushed for revisionism on the American Indians, and protested the Vietnam War where American militarism was embroiled in neo-imperialist destruction.
And the appeal of Michael King(aka Martin L. King) to many whites was the message of reconciliation and understanding, a call to peace as a means to settle the racial divide in America. And before him, plenty of black leaders were critical of blacks and mindful of bettering themselves to show their worthiness of being fully accepted into American Society.

However, Jews and blacks by and large proved to be not as self-reflective as the White Christians. The reasons could be genetic, cultural, historical, and/or political. Blacks, being wilder and more childlike, tend to lack empathy and instead view the world in terms of ‘gots to have me’. Jews being of pushier temperament and wilier mindset, tend toward egocentrism, tribalism, or ‘advantagism’.
But aside from genetic and cultural traits, their victim mentality is more ingrained due to prolonged historical conditions. As far as blacks are concerned, at least up to the Sixties, they lived under the white yoke since their forced arrival on American shores as slaves. Their entire memory is that of having been on the bottom. Likewise, the entirety of Jewish existence in the West until relatively recently was under white/Christian power. Thus, Jews always felt their lot was precarious, never certain. Even when times were good, there was always the chance that the winds of fortune may blow the other way, and they’d lose it all or be expelled yet once again. And even privileged Jews felt surrounded by goyim who muttered about ‘Christ Killers’ and ‘stingy Jews’.